aureon_get_objective_registry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that a record exists only 'when registered' but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unregistered objectives, or whether the read is side-effect free.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with a meaningful conditional (registered vs not).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the registry record represents, how an objective becomes registered (via prepare/confirm_objective_registry), and the failure mode when it is not registered. None of that is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (objectiveId is documented as 'Objective id'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup-semantics detail beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (the on-chain registry record for an objective), which distinguishes it from the generic aureon_get_objective and the registry mutation siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with aureon_get_objective or aureon_registry_status, so an agent must infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The clause 'when registered' implies a precondition, but there is no statement of when to call this versus aureon_get_objective, aureon_registry_status, or the prepare/confirm registry pair, and no indication of what happens if the objective is not registered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.